I disagree. Many people in this forum continue to display a misunderstanding of what climate change theory is proposing. Concepts like weighted averages and using several imperfect data sets to develop data that is more accurate than either, calibration, etc. - these are all concepts that the average person, regardless of how much casual reading he does, is unable (or more likely, unwilling) to understand. Just look at the citations people make. They are not to primary data. They are to biased analyses. Even when Breitbart provides links to primary data to support their analyses, I wonder how many Breitbart readers bother to click through to those references to decide for themselves if the Breitbart analysis of the data is correct?
Well, then I will consider your opinion along with the many more scientists who disagree with you.
You mean you have seen claims of data fraud. I have seen some of those claims too, and looked carefully at their reasoning. I find them more full of holes than the data they are supposedly denigrating.
Most scientists do no engage in such attacks. I cannot defend what others do.
That is clearly not enough, for I have seen graphs from Breitbart and graphs from IPCC and graphs from NOAA, and they are not the same.
That depends on how closely you expect the models to agree with actual measured data. From what I have seen the models are surprisingly good.
Correlations are indeed permissible in a science that is statistical in nature. Consider the correlations detected between certain diseases and various other factors. Those correlations are taken seriously long before the mechanism for causation is established, if ever.
You are confusing scientific claims and media claims. Most scientists do not go in for that kind of piecemeal approach to causation. For example, we know that steroid use in baseball has increased the number of home runs hit in a year. But no one can say for sure that any one home run was the result of steroid use.
I have read that article before. It is only about the Cook paper. What about Carlton 2015, Stenhouse 2014, Verheggen 2014, Anderegg 2010, Doran 2009, Oreskes 2004? Do you have links to refute each of them too?
No. With matters I do not understand, I listen to the voices that have had the best track record. That would be mainstream scientists.